e0y2e3 wrote:The pussification of the game because they want something to crow about as a sign of caring about the players during the lockout.

so much this it's almost laughable. The cynic in me believes the spin "we love our players" campaign goes back to the sudden helmet to helmet issue last season. The NFL machine looked at the possibility of labor strife and decided they needed to win the hearts and minds of the fans and media. It's all bullshit.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

I'll accept Everett but we're talking NFL only. The NCAA hasn't changed their rules and I'm not going to get into their situation or high school or anywhere else.

For reasons regarding compensation and otherse.

And yes, that would qualify as that type of injury/scare, but Kevin Everett walked into the Bills stadium 3 months later. There are guys with severe ankle injuries who couldn't have done that.

Not minimizing it or dismissing it.

Just sayin', Byrd was rushing the passer, Utley blocking a pass rusher, Stingley went up for a basic ball. The NFL is looking in the wrong area and I think you can add this to the 18 game schedule as basic PR bullshit that appeals to the LCD.

"With the input of coaches, the committee decided to allow return teams to have a two-man wedge. The committee proposal suggested the elimination of the two-man wedge, but coaches argued that would make it harder to have quality returns."

I do agree with the rest of the McPeek article/rant though.

"And three of the better guys in franchise history, Daugherty, Z and now Kyrie could get hurt in a rubber room full of cotton balls." - Leadpipe

Two men do not make a wedge IMHO. Triangular in nature, triangular in it's cross section or a triangual shaped tool, whatever. Two players can be a double team, but it takes at least three to form a wedge.

Not worth arguing at all other than to say I disagree that two men can form a wedge on the field no matter what the NFL says but I'm glad you read the article.

idoctribefan wrote:Maybe I skipped over the post where somebody else said this, but they did not get rid of the two-man wedge.

"With the input of coaches, the committee decided to allow return teams to have a two-man wedge. The committee proposal suggested the elimination of the two-man wedge, but coaches argued that would make it harder to have quality returns."

No offense to anyone, but I think the reaction to this change is a tad overdramatic.

How many plays per game are we talking about, really?

And as pointed out in the linked article, KO returns for touchdowns is pretty much a recent phenomena. There were 23 last year, which equals the total for the years 1981-1984. Was football a total bore back then?

Everybody digs scoring, but if you're a real football traditionalist, defensive battles are still pretty engaging.

Don't know if everything in the linked article is true, but it's got some interesting points.

gameface wrote:No offense to anyone, but I think the reaction to this change is a tad overdramatic.

Justifiable. Let's remember that the kickoff used to be at the 35 up until 1994, so this is hardly virgin territory.

So bringing back head slaps would be cool too. If you can stun a lineman like a fish real quick it will keep him from gaining the speed required to collide with someone else.

Let's do it.

The moved the kicks back because kickers were too strong and touchbacks were too high. At that pointed they wanted more returns. Why? Relatively speaking guys were still colliding and knocking heads , no?

They're not looking for more action here. They're looking to change the fundamentals of the game because they fear injuries. Again, show me the data that the kickoffs are more dangerous than any other play.

gameface wrote:No offense to anyone, but I think the reaction to this change is a tad overdramatic.

Justifiable. Let's remember that the kickoff used to be at the 35 up until 1994, so this is hardly virgin territory.

So bringing back head slaps would be cool too. If you can stun a lineman like a fish real quick it will keep him from gaining the speed required to collide with someone else.

Let's do it.

The moved the kicks back because kickers were too strong and touchbacks were too high. At that pointed they wanted more returns. Why? Relatively speaking guys were still colliding and knocking heads , no?

They're not looking for more action here. They're looking to change the fundamentals of the game because they fear injuries. Again, show me the data that the kickoffs are more dangerous than any other play.

SD:

Not that i'm on the side of this rule change , and not that I'm bringing any stats to support the NFL's case , but you do know the nickname for the kickoff unit is Suicide squad ....No?

The NFL is slick , they eliminate two positions in a spor clamoring for more bodies on their rosters , a "deep kicker "in addition to a field goal kicker , and a "return man "under the phony guise of increased safety .

Everything in the past ten years has been geared to more offense , kickoffs should have been moved to the 25 not the 35 , they're intent to make this a wasted exercise and bogart their agenda to institute the kiddie league rule of no kickoffs and taking the ball on the 25.

gameface wrote:No offense to anyone, but I think the reaction to this change is a tad overdramatic.

Justifiable. Let's remember that the kickoff used to be at the 35 up until 1994, so this is hardly virgin territory.

So bringing back head slaps would be cool too. If you can stun a lineman like a fish real quick it will keep him from gaining the speed required to collide with someone else.

Let's do it.

The moved the kicks back because kickers were too strong and touchbacks were too high. At that pointed they wanted more returns. Why? Relatively speaking guys were still colliding and knocking heads , no?

They're not looking for more action here. They're looking to change the fundamentals of the game because they fear injuries. Again, show me the data that the kickoffs are more dangerous than any other play.

I don't disagree with what you say. I don't like this change either. But I'm just sayin' I don't remember thinking that moving the kickoff from the 35 to the 30 in the 90's resulted in a drastic change in the game, so I wonder if changing it back will make as much of a difference as we think.

You know, the whole mountain/molehill thing.

Now, if they decided to give a point to the kickoff team for booting it through the uprights... that would be a change of much more drastic proportions.

I think that some of the violent reaction to this change is the result of not having much else football-wise to talk about. If we were in the middle of free agency right now, this probably would've been a blip.

For the NFL, it might make sense for game-flow and $$ if they got rid of kickoffs altogether. Start each drive at the 20. That way, you could schedule drive / commercial break / punt or score (repeat ad nauseum) instead of drive end / commercial / kick-off / (sometimes) commercial / drive. I know the kick off is exciting for players on the field and fans at the game, but on TV it can feel like a big waste of time.

Maybe this is the direction they are taking things. Longer, but less frequent television timeouts with more action in between. Plus, the dude in the giant orange glove would have a much easier time.

For the NFL, it might make sense for game-flow and $$ if they got rid of kickoffs altogether. Start each drive at the 20. That way, you could schedule drive / commercial break / punt or score (repeat ad nauseum) instead of drive end / commercial / kick-off / (sometimes) commercial / drive. I know the kick off is exciting for players on the field and fans at the game, but on TV it can feel like a big waste of time.

Maybe this is the direction they are taking things. Longer, but less frequent television timeouts with more action in between. Plus, the dude in the giant orange glove would have a much easier time.

This occurred to me as well, but I just don't see the NFL passing up any opportunities for a TV Time Out.

Now, if they decided to give a point to the kickoff team for booting it through the uprights... that would be a change of much more drastic proportions.

I think that some of the violent reaction to this change is the result of not having much else football-wise to talk about. If we were in the middle of free agency right now, this probably would've been a blip.

My own personla animus (always wanted to use that word)has nothing to do with scoring or touch backs or "pussification" or Josh Cribbs....it's all about the hypocrisy of the NFL and thier sudden, very public campaign for "player safety" in the middle of a lockout when they are insisting on an 18 game schedule, which would certainly increase the risk of injury more than changing KO rules.

It's all about the $$$$. Always.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

mattvan1 wrote:My own personla animus (always wanted to use that word)has nothing to do with scoring or touch backs or "pussification" or Josh Cribbs....it's all about the hypocrisy of the NFL and thier sudden, very public campaign for "player safety" in the middle of a lockout when they are insisting on an 18 game schedule, which would certainly increase the risk of injury more than changing KO rules.

It's all about the $$$$. Always.

You are completely right. And it always will be because the NFL is run by billionaires, and they didn't get that way by not being greedy, seedy, slumlord scumbags.

NFL sleaziness/hypocrisy is really just a given. Not sure how far down the food chain you have to go before you get away from the sleazy hypocrites, though. Probably junior high football.

peeker643 wrote:. Again, show me the data that the kickoffs are more dangerous than any other play.

Check the link I supplied. I think the author takes a stab at it.

No offense and the link is appreciated, but I'm not interested in high school stats.

Same shit as kids in cars. You're more experienced when you're an adult than you were as a kid whether it be respect, fear or common sense. Maybe there is some valuable data the league used to quantify the injury issues on kickoffs.

I sure as hell hope it wasn't the one the author linked.

And yeah, you want to eliminate kickoff injuries then eliminate the effing kickoff. Like I said in my article, the kicker and the returner are the only ones not busting balls and colliding with someone under the new rules.

This does nothing other than give them a bullet point under "What We Do For Player Safety" page in the booklet.

"I haven’t seen the internal data the NFL competition committee and owners reviewed before voting on this proposal. They tell us that injuries are higher on kickoffs."

I assume that the "they" is the NFL, so maybe it's fake data, but there is somebody saying there is statistical proof.

The kids and cars analogy....I don't know about that. Maybe for total injuries it might apply, but don't see it fitting for a percentage on injuries occuring on kickoffs. The high school stuff might not fit just by sample size, I'm not a stat analysist, but I would think there very well could be a correlation between HS and pro, since they are playing the same game.

And why does it have to be all or nothing? Eliminating the kick off would be a major change in the game. As I said before, this is a minor thang, affecting a small number of plays per game (3, 4, 5 at the most?) There will still be kickoff returns and KO return touchdowns.

"I haven’t seen the internal data the NFL competition committee and owners reviewed before voting on this proposal. They tell us that injuries are higher on kickoffs."

I saw that. It was right before the high school stats. It struck me as, "I don't know about that but look at this". It's not necessarily apples to apples.

I assume that the "they" is the NFL, so maybe it's fake data, but there is somebody saying there is statistical proof.

OK. Where is it? Is it top secret and proprietary? Is it a Hippa violation? Let me see it if you wanna hand the result to me and tell me you're taking their best interests to heart. This is garbage and keeps no one any safer at all. I have data for that but I can't share it.

The kids and cars analogy....I don't know about that. Maybe for total injuries it might apply, but don't see it fitting for a percentage on injuries occuring on kickoffs. The high school stuff might not fit just by sample size, I'm not a stat analysist, but I would think there very well could be a correlation between HS and pro, since they are playing the same game.

OK. If that's the prevailing thought then we should probably stop now because it's not the same game. Not to mention high school programs don't necessarily have the proper equipment, instruction, etc. And high school kids are stupid.

And why does it have to be all or nothing? Eliminating the kick off would be a major change in the game. As I said before, this is a minor thang, affecting a small number of plays per game (3, 4, 5 at the most?) There will still be kickoff returns and KO return touchdowns.

Wait, wait, wait.... why does the fact there might be returns and returns for TDs matter? Apparently this is the most death defying moment in football, isn't it? Isn't that why they changed the rule? Why take the chance at all? Does the occasional return or TD return justify all the bodies lying in the returners wake? What if a guy gets smoked and paralyzed on a TD return? If it's all about safety and you've determined the KO is deadly, well, how will you defend in court that you still allowed for them at all?[/quote]

High school kids are stupid, but dang, a lot of NFL players are stupid in the same kind of ways. See D Stallworth for reckless driving, and A Cromartie for unregulated breeding with multiple women. And our favorite B Rothliesberger for...everything else.

I will say this, semi seriously, that high school players probably tackle with better (and safer) form than most NFL guys. And they probably still wear hip, thigh and knee pads too.

gameface wrote:High school kids are stupid, but dang, a lot of NFL players are stupid in the same kind of ways. See D Stallworth for reckless driving, and A Cromartie for unregulated breeding with multiple women. And our favorite B Rothliesberger for...everything else.

I will say this, semi seriously, that high school players probably tackle with better (and safer) form than most NFL guys. And they probably still wear hip, thigh and knee pads too.

True. The ones that are taught proper fundamentals probably do.

But there's also a huge difference between playing high school sanctioned sports and playing professionally in regard to risk and liability. Not to mention there 30 or so NFL teams and probably a thousand times more high schools. You're going to hear more about kids dying or being seriously injured on HS fields or in high school gyms because there are simply so many more of them.

I just think this move is more bargaining and pr than a sincere effort to stem catastrophic injuries among NFL players.